There are two ways of thinking about the Iranian nuclear programme.
The first is that the Iranians are developing nuclear power for the same reasons that John Howard wanted to develop nuclear power: because we need alternative energy sources. It’s quite entitled to do it under international law.
It’s true that the Iranians appear to have been less than frank about their past activities but there are extenuating circumstances; the world’s only superpower has been relentlessy hostile to Iran for more than 20 years and that superpower’s main ally in the Middle East has also refused to disclose any information about its nuclear program. So while one might not condone past behaviour, it’s reasonable to accept the Iranians at their word in the absence of any persuasive evidence to the contrary.
The alternative view is that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons under the guise of an energy program. There is no compelling evidence for this. Intelligence summaries from the USA vary so wildly that they must all be highly suspect, but the latest one concludes that attempts to acquire nuclear weapons finished in 2003. The main source of evidence cited by those who maintain that Iran has a weapons program is data from a laptop of mysterious provenance. Anybody who has a working knowledge of the way intelligence was manipulated or fabricated in the lead up to the attack on Iraq must be very sceptical of information gleaned from the laptops of alleged defectors.
The alternative view depends on the fundamental premise that whatever the Iranians are doing, it’s not what they say they are doing. The underlying assumption is that Islamofascists cannot be telling the truth so we must disregard anything they say officially and use our powers of deduction to build a coherent narrative from scraps of data and speculation.
It’s likely that there is a strong element of projection in this. Politicians and the media in the USA, Israel and many other countries are so used to spinning information to tell stories that are either distorted or plain untrue that they take it for granted the Iranians are doing the same thing. It’s beyond their comprehension that the official version of events faithfully reflects reality. Suspicion has become their reflexive response to anything emanating from Iran.
This mentality was apparent in a recent story in the New York Times about a visit paid by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials to a uranium enrichment facility earlier this month. While ostensibly reporting on the visit, the obvious sub-text was ‘what are the bastards really up to?’
For example:
It is a place of secrets that Iran loves to boast about, clouding the effort’s real status and making Western analysts all the more eager for solid details and clues.
Is that just a cutesy bit of hot air or is there some solid evidence that the ‘real status’ is different to what the Iranians say it is? Unfortunately the tenor of the article suggests that ‘Western analysts’ have already made up their minds that whatever the real status is, it can’t possibly be what the Iranians say. Might that be because the analysts would be out of a job?
The article begins:
Barbed wire and antiaircraft guns ring a maze of buildings in the Iranian desert that lie at the heart of the West’s five-year standoff with Tehran over its program to enrich uranium.
Well that’s exactly where I’d expect to find a uranium enrichment plant in any self-respecting NIMBY society. But hang on a minute … aren’t the Iranians supposed to have squirrelled their nuclear facilities away in secret locations? Preferably surrounded by women and children so decent freedom-loving nations won’t attack them. How come this place is out in the middle of nowhere and might as well have an ‘aim bombs here’ sign on the roof?
Some of the aforementioned Western analysts are clearly puzzled by the story and its accompanying photographs of new improved centrifuges. “This is intel to die for,” says one, but if so, why are the Iranians allowing it to be shown around the world? Could it be that it’s only ‘intel to die for’ if the centrifuges are being used for illicit purposes? Maybe the Iranians are showing off their technological capabilities to the world and have no interest in concealing it. “I don’t see anything to suggest this is propaganda,” says another analyst and you can sense the unspoken question … “So what the hell are they up to?”
In the best Western intelligence traditions of ascribing great significance to random events (see also “Look here’s a picture of North Korean in Syria so obviously they were working on a nuclear reactor”), we read this:
One surprise of the tour was the presence of Iran’s defense minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar. His attendance struck some analysts as odd given Iran’s claim that the desert labors are entirely peaceful in nature. In one picture, Mr. Najjar, smiling widely, appears to lead the presidential retinue.
Guys do you think there might be a clue why the defence minister would visit in the first paragraph of the story? You know, the bit about the anti-aircraft guns. Given the regular bellicose threats of Israel and the Americans, I’d be amazed if the defence minister wasn’t taking a lively interest in the uranium enrichment plant.
So there are these two competing narratives: one in which we can accept that the Iranians are telling the truth or something close to it and the other in which they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes while they build nuclear weapons. How to know which is true?
In a rational world, people would arrive at a tentative conclusion based on the available evidence and remain prepared to review that conclusion if new evidence comes to hand. On the evidence that has been published so far, I lean to the conclusion that the Iranians are developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Certainly there is insufficient evidence to justify even the financial sanctions that have been imposed by the USA, which now seem to be in support of a childish demand that the Iranians own up to what they did or thought of doing many years ago. Evidence that would justify military action is completely absent.
Unfortunately however, this kind of reaction seems more typical of American attitudes:
Dr. Wood of the University of Virginia said the episode smelled of hubris. “It was amazing to me that they put the pictures out there,” he said. “It’s sort of a cocky thing. I would think they had more to gain by keeping their cards close to their chests.”
By this analysis, the move trumpets Iran’s defiance of the West and the United Nations Security Council, which has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to halt the uranium enrichment.
How dare a bunch of ragheads defy the Empire!!! It looks like we’ll just have to give them some more lessons in knowing their place … that at least seems to be a widespread sentiment.
I fear that intelligence in the USA no longer consists of gathering data for dispassionate analysis. It now consists of gathering evidence selectively to support an unshakeable, predermined belief. I fervently hope that the Australian intelligence services remain sufficiently competent and independent to give the Rudd Government advice unfiltered by any preconceived ideas about the inevitable outcome. Rudd’s response should the USA attack Iran will far outweigh in its long-term consequences anything else he might have to do in his term of office.
